1 Data

Information about the test:

question	description	MATH_group
A1	properties of fractions	A
A2	find intersection of lines	A
A3	composition of functions	B
A4	completing the square	A
A5	trig double angle formula	A
A6	trig wave function	A
A7	graphical vector sum	B
A8	compute angle between 3d vectors	A
A9	simplify logs	A
A10	identify graph of rational functions	B
A11	summing arithmetic progression	A
A12	find point with given slope	A
A13	equation of tangent	A
A14	find minimum gradient of cubic	B
A15	find and classify stationary points of cubic	A
A16	trig chain rule	A
A17	chain rule	A
A18	definite integral	A
A19	area between curve and x-axis (in 2 parts)	B
A20	product rule with given values	B

Load the student scores for the test:

Show data summary

test_scores %>% skim()

Data summary
Name	Piped data
Number of rows	3496
Number of columns	23
_______________________
Column type frequency:
character	2
numeric	21
________________________
Group variables	None

Variable type: character

skim_variable	n_missing	complete_rate	min	max	empty	n_unique	whitespace
year	0	1	7	7	0	4	0
AnonID	0	1	9	9	0	3472	0

Variable type: numeric

skim_variable	complete_rate	mean	sd	p25	p50	p75	p100	hist
Total	1	67.85	23.05	57.00	72.5	85	100	▁▁▃▇▇
A1	1	4.25	1.51	5.00	5.0	5	5	▁▁▂▁▇
A2	1	4.23	1.73	5.00	5.0	5	5	▁▁▁▁▇
A3	1	3.20	2.40	0.00	5.0	5	5	▅▁▁▁▇
A4	1	3.68	1.56	3.00	4.0	5	5	▂▂▂▃▇
A5	1	3.97	2.02	5.00	5.0	5	5	▂▁▁▁▇
A6	1	1.58	1.89	0.00	0.0	2	5	▇▅▁▁▃
A7	1	3.45	2.24	0.00	5.0	5	5	▃▁▁▁▇
A8	1	3.03	2.44	0.00	5.0	5	5	▅▁▁▁▇
A9	1	4.16	1.87	5.00	5.0	5	5	▂▁▁▁▇
A10	1	3.14	2.08	2.50	5.0	5	5	▃▁▃▁▇
A11	1	3.89	1.67	2.50	5.0	5	5	▁▁▂▁▇
A12	1	3.78	2.06	4.00	5.0	5	5	▃▁▁▁▇
A13	1	3.53	2.05	2.00	5.0	5	5	▂▂▁▁▇
A14	1	2.50	1.99	0.00	2.0	5	5	▇▇▁▁▇
A15	1	3.35	2.13	1.25	5.0	5	5	▃▁▂▁▇
A16	1	4.23	1.81	5.00	5.0	5	5	▂▁▁▁▇
A17	1	4.36	1.67	5.00	5.0	5	5	▁▁▁▁▇
A18	1	3.33	2.36	0.00	5.0	5	5	▅▁▁▁▇
A19	1	2.33	2.49	0.00	0.0	5	5	▇▁▁▁▇
A20	1	1.86	2.42	0.00	0.0	5	5	▇▁▁▁▅

1.1 Data cleaning

Included in the data are many abandoned attempts, where students have apparently not engaged with most questions (e.g. after the first few on the test). Unfortunately the data only includes a score for each item, and not whether it was actually answered, so to try to remove these “non-serious” attempts, we use a process of eliminating based on scores in the latter half of the test:

For students who took the test more than once, consider the attempt with the highest scores only and remove the others;
Eliminate the students who scored three or more zeros in the 5 easiest questions in the second-half of the test; and
Add the students scoring more than 30 marks in total back to the sample.

test_scores <- test_scores_unfiltered %>% 
  group_by(AnonID) %>% 
  slice_max(Total, n = 1) %>% 
  ungroup() %>% 
  rowwise() %>% 
  mutate(zeros_in_easiest_5 = sum(A11==0, A12==0, A13==0, A16==0, A17==0)) %>% 
  filter(zeros_in_easiest_5 <= 2 | Total >= 30) %>% 
  select(-zeros_in_easiest_5) %>% 
  ungroup()

bind_rows(
  "unfiltered" = test_scores_unfiltered %>% select(Total),
  "filtered" = test_scores %>% select(Total),
  .id = "dataset"
) %>% 
  group_by(dataset) %>% 
  # add n's to the facet titles
  mutate(dataset = str_glue("{dataset} (n={n()})") %>% as_factor()) %>% 
  # flip them so that filtered appears on the right
  mutate(dataset = fct_rev(dataset)) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = Total)) +
  geom_histogram() +
  facet_wrap(vars(dataset)) +
  theme_minimal()

## `stat_bin()` using `bins = 30`. Pick better value with `binwidth`.

Distribution of scores, filtered vs unfiltered

1.2 Data summary

Summary of each cohort:

test_scores_summary <- test_scores %>% 
  group_by(year) %>% 
  summarise(
    n = n(),
    mean = mean(Total),
    sd = sd(Total),
    median = median(Total)
  )

test_scores_summary %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  fmt_number(columns = c("mean", "sd"), decimals = 2) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = c("n"),
    colors = scales::col_numeric(palette = c("Blues"), domain = NULL)
  )

year	n	mean	sd	median
2013-14	816	69.77	16.94	71.0
2014-15	924	70.30	16.71	71.5
2015-16	721	73.28	17.05	76.0
2016-17	760	77.25	15.31	79.5

test_scores %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = Total)) +
  ggridges::geom_density_ridges(aes(y = year, fill = year)) +
  #facet_grid(cols = vars(year)) +
  theme_minimal()

## Picking joint bandwidth of 3.9

p1 <- test_scores %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = Total)) +
  geom_histogram(binwidth = 5) +
  #scale_x_continuous(limits = c(0,100), breaks = c(0, 50, 100)) +
  facet_grid(cols = vars(year)) +
  theme_minimal() +
  labs(x = "Total score (out of 100)",
       y = "Number of students",
       title = "Edinburgh MDT") +
  theme(axis.title.x = element_blank(), axis.title.y = element_blank())

p2 <- test_scores_summary %>% 
  mutate(
    n = str_glue("{n}"),
    mean = str_glue("{round(mean, digits = 1)}"),
    sd = str_glue("{round(sd, digits = 1)}"),
    median = str_glue("{median}")
  ) %>% 
  pivot_longer(c(n, mean, sd, median), names_to = "layer", values_to = "label") %>% 
  mutate(layer = fct_relevel(layer, c("n", "sd", "mean", "median")) %>% fct_rev()) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = 80, y = layer, label = label)) +
  geom_text(size = 10 * 5/14, hjust = 1) +
  scale_x_continuous(limits = c(0,100)) +
  facet_grid(cols = vars(year)) +
  labs(y = "", x = NULL) +
  scale_y_discrete(labels = c("n" = "N", "mean" = "Mean", "median" = "Median")) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(axis.line = element_blank(), axis.ticks = element_blank(), axis.text.x = element_blank(),
        panel.grid = element_blank(), strip.text = element_blank())

p1 / p2 +  plot_layout(heights = c(5, 2.5))

ggsave("output/uoe_pre_data-summary.pdf", units = "cm", width = 12, height = 8)

Mean and standard deviation for each item:

test_scores %>% 
  select(-AnonID, -Total) %>% 
  group_by(year) %>% 
  skim_without_charts() %>% 
  select(-contains("character."), -contains("numeric.p"), -skim_type) %>% 
  rename(complete = complete_rate) %>% 
  # make the table wider, i.e. with separate columns for each year's results, with the year at the start of each column name
  pivot_wider(names_from = year, values_from = -c(skim_variable, year), names_glue = "{year}__{.value}") %>% 
  # put the columns in order by year
  select(sort(names(.))) %>% 
  select(skim_variable, everything()) %>% 
  # use GT to make the table look nice
  gt(rowname_col = "skim_variable") %>% 
  # group the columns from each year
  tab_spanner_delim(delim = "__") %>%
  fmt_number(columns = contains("numeric"), decimals = 2) %>%
  fmt_percent(columns = contains("complete"), decimals = 0) %>% 
  # change all the numeric.mean and numeric.sd column names to Mean and SD
  cols_label(
    .list = test_scores %>% select(year) %>% distinct() %>% transmute(col = paste0(year, "__numeric.mean"), label = "Mean") %>% deframe()
  ) %>% 
  cols_label(
    .list = test_scores %>% select(year) %>% distinct() %>% transmute(col = paste0(year, "__numeric.sd"), label = "SD") %>% deframe()
  ) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("numeric.mean"),
    colors = scales::col_numeric(palette = c("Greens"), domain = NULL)
  )

	2013-14				2014-15				2015-16				2016-17
	complete	n_missing	Mean	SD	complete	n_missing	Mean	SD	complete	n_missing	Mean	SD	complete	n_missing	Mean	SD
A1	100%	0	4.32	1.41	100%	0	4.40	1.32	100%	0	4.45	1.29	100%	0	4.52	1.16
A2	100%	0	4.31	1.65	100%	0	4.41	1.53	100%	0	4.49	1.45	100%	0	4.54	1.38
A3	100%	0	3.33	2.36	100%	0	3.25	2.39	100%	0	3.39	2.34	100%	0	3.61	2.24
A4	100%	0	3.72	1.43	100%	0	3.83	1.33	100%	0	3.91	1.38	100%	0	4.12	1.22
A5	100%	0	4.05	1.96	100%	0	4.19	1.84	100%	0	4.28	1.76	100%	0	4.32	1.71
A6	100%	0	1.48	1.85	100%	0	1.53	1.85	100%	0	1.82	1.96	100%	0	2.03	1.97
A7	100%	0	3.58	2.17	100%	0	3.47	2.22	100%	0	3.70	2.12	100%	0	4.14	1.84
A8	100%	0	2.97	2.46	100%	0	3.04	2.44	100%	0	3.33	2.36	100%	0	3.70	2.19
A9	100%	0	4.31	1.73	100%	0	4.46	1.55	100%	0	4.45	1.57	100%	0	4.65	1.27
A10	100%	0	3.19	2.03	100%	0	3.29	2.00	100%	0	3.34	1.97	100%	0	3.62	1.89
A11	100%	0	4.05	1.45	100%	0	4.16	1.40	100%	0	4.13	1.42	100%	0	4.25	1.35
A12	100%	0	3.99	1.90	100%	0	3.93	1.95	100%	0	4.11	1.81	100%	0	4.29	1.65
A13	100%	0	3.69	1.95	100%	0	3.68	1.94	100%	0	3.83	1.81	100%	0	4.06	1.71
A14	100%	0	2.44	1.93	100%	0	2.54	1.93	100%	0	2.85	1.92	100%	0	3.03	1.90
A15	100%	0	3.57	2.00	100%	0	3.51	2.02	100%	0	3.67	1.95	100%	0	3.68	2.02
A16	100%	0	4.51	1.49	100%	0	4.49	1.52	100%	0	4.55	1.43	100%	0	4.66	1.26
A17	100%	0	4.69	1.21	100%	0	4.59	1.37	100%	0	4.74	1.12	100%	0	4.75	1.09
A18	100%	0	3.48	2.30	100%	0	3.45	2.31	100%	0	3.65	2.22	100%	0	3.83	2.12
A19	100%	0	2.28	2.49	100%	0	2.26	2.49	100%	0	2.61	2.50	100%	0	2.99	2.45
A20	100%	0	1.83	2.41	100%	0	1.82	2.41	100%	0	2.00	2.45	100%	0	2.46	2.50

2 Testing assumptions

Before applying IRT, we should check that the data satisfies the assumptions needed by the model. In particular, to use a 1-dimensional IRT model, we should have some evidence of unidimensionality in the test scores.

2.1 Inter-item correlations

If the test is unidimensional then we would expect student scores on pairs of items to be correlated.

This plot shows the correlations between scores on each pair of items:

item_scores <- test_scores %>% 
  select(starts_with("A"), -AnonID)

cor_ci <- psych::corCi(item_scores, plot = FALSE)

psych::cor.plot.upperLowerCi(cor_ci)

Checking for correlations that are not significantly different from 0, there are none:

cor_ci$ci %>% 
  as_tibble(rownames = "corr") %>% 
  filter(p > 0.05) %>% 
  arrange(-p) %>% 
  select(-contains(".e")) %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  fmt_number(columns = 2:4, decimals = 3)

corr	lower	upper	p
A3-A8	−0.004	0.067	0.087
A1-A17	−0.004	0.082	0.076
A2-A17	0.000	0.083	0.051

The overall picture is that the item scores are well correlated with each other.

2.2 Dimensionality

structure <- check_factorstructure(item_scores)
n <- n_factors(item_scores)

2.2.1 Is the data suitable for Factor Analysis?

KMO: The Kaiser, Meyer, Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy suggests that data seems appropriate for factor analysis (KMO = 0.89).
Sphericity: Bartlett’s test of sphericity suggests that there is sufficient significant correlation in the data for factor analysis (Chisq(190) = 7881.11, p < .001).

2.2.2 Method Agreement Procedure:

The choice of 1 dimensions is supported by 6 (31.58%) methods out of 19 (t, p, Acceleration factor, Scree (R2), VSS complexity 1, Velicer’s MAP).

plot(n)

summary(n) %>% gt()

n_Factors	n_Methods
1	6
2	2
3	2
4	5
12	1
19	3

#n %>% tibble() %>% gt()

fa.parallel(item_scores, fa = "fa")

## Parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors =  5  and the number of components =  NA

2.2.3 1 Factor

We use the factanal function to fit a 1-factor model.

Note that this function cannot handle missing data, so any NA scores must be set to 0 for this analysis.

fitfact <- factanal(item_scores,
                    factors = 1,
                    rotation = "varimax")
print(fitfact, digits = 2, cutoff = 0.3, sort = TRUE)

## 
## Call:
## factanal(x = item_scores, factors = 1, rotation = "varimax")
## 
## Uniquenesses:
##   A1   A2   A3   A4   A5   A6   A7   A8   A9  A10  A11  A12  A13  A14  A15  A16 
## 0.90 0.96 0.83 0.73 0.89 0.84 0.80 0.94 0.89 0.83 0.92 0.84 0.81 0.63 0.89 0.85 
##  A17  A18  A19  A20 
## 0.90 0.85 0.74 0.68 
## 
## Loadings:
##  [1] 0.52 0.61 0.51 0.57 0.31      0.41 0.33 0.40 0.45      0.34 0.41      0.40
## [16] 0.44 0.33 0.39 0.32 0.39
## 
##                Factor1
## SS loadings       3.29
## Proportion Var    0.16
## 
## Test of the hypothesis that 1 factor is sufficient.
## The chi square statistic is 1276.9 on 170 degrees of freedom.
## The p-value is 7.86e-169

load <- tidy(fitfact)

load %>% 
  select(question = variable, factor_loading = fl1) %>% 
  left_join(item_info, by = "question") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = factor_loading, y = 0, colour = MATH_group)) + 
    geom_point() + 
    geom_label_repel(aes(label = question), show.legend = FALSE) +
    scale_colour_manual("MATH group", values = MATH_colours) +
  scale_y_discrete() +
    labs(x = "Factor 1", y = NULL,
         title = "Standardised Loadings", 
         subtitle = "Based on 1-factor solution") +
    theme_minimal()

## Warning: ggrepel: 2 unlabeled data points (too many overlaps). Consider
## increasing max.overlaps

load %>% 
  select(question = variable, factor_loading = fl1) %>% 
  left_join(item_info, by = "question") %>% 
  arrange(-factor_loading) %>% 
  gt() %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("factor"),
    colors = scales::col_numeric(palette = c("Greens"), domain = NULL)
  ) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("MATH"),
    colors = MATH_colours
  )

question	factor_loading	description	MATH_group
A14	0.6113509	find minimum gradient of cubic	B
A20	0.5654389	product rule with given values	B
A4	0.5179007	completing the square	A
A19	0.5095020	area between curve and x-axis (in 2 parts)	B
A7	0.4479689	graphical vector sum	B
A13	0.4363393	equation of tangent	A
A3	0.4144852	composition of functions	B
A10	0.4129131	identify graph of rational functions	B
A6	0.4005742	trig wave function	A
A12	0.3980326	find point with given slope	A
A16	0.3873155	trig chain rule	A
A18	0.3870384	definite integral	A
A9	0.3370688	simplify logs	A
A15	0.3346979	find and classify stationary points of cubic	A
A5	0.3339280	trig double angle formula	A
A17	0.3235231	chain rule	A
A1	0.3090752	properties of fractions	A
A11	0.2909308	summing arithmetic progression	A
A8	0.2348027	compute angle between 3d vectors	A
A2	0.2082143	find intersection of lines	A

It is striking here that the MATH Group B questions are those that load most strongly onto this factor.

2.2.4 4 Factor

Here we also investigate the 4-factor solution, to see whether these factors are interpretable.

fitfact2 <- factanal(item_scores, factors = 4, rotation = "varimax")
print(fitfact2, digits = 2, cutoff = 0.3, sort = TRUE)

## 
## Call:
## factanal(x = item_scores, factors = 4, rotation = "varimax")
## 
## Uniquenesses:
##   A1   A2   A3   A4   A5   A6   A7   A8   A9  A10  A11  A12  A13  A14  A15  A16 
## 0.88 0.95 0.70 0.69 0.86 0.75 0.77 0.81 0.87 0.80 0.90 0.81 0.69 0.58 0.87 0.59 
##  A17  A18  A19  A20 
## 0.45 0.83 0.75 0.66 
## 
## Loadings:
##     Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4
## A3  0.54                           
## A16         0.60                   
## A17         0.73                   
## A13                 0.50           
## A1  0.33                           
## A2                                 
## A4  0.48                           
## A5                                 
## A6                          0.42   
## A7  0.37                           
## A8                          0.42   
## A9                                 
## A10 0.40                           
## A11                                
## A12                 0.32           
## A14 0.41            0.46           
## A15                                
## A18                                
## A19 0.37                           
## A20 0.48                           
## 
##                Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4
## SS loadings       1.82    1.14    1.01    0.80
## Proportion Var    0.09    0.06    0.05    0.04
## Cumulative Var    0.09    0.15    0.20    0.24
## 
## Test of the hypothesis that 4 factors are sufficient.
## The chi square statistic is 196.75 on 116 degrees of freedom.
## The p-value is 4.23e-06

load2 <- tidy(fitfact2)

load2_plot <- load2 %>%
  rename(question = variable) %>% 
  left_join(item_info, by = "question") %>%
  ggplot(aes(x = fl1, y = fl2, colour = MATH_group, shape = MATH_group)) +
  geom_point() +
  geom_text_repel(aes(label = question), show.legend = FALSE, alpha = 0.6) +
  labs(
    x = "Factor 1 (of 4)",
    y = "Factor 2 (of 4)"
  ) +
  scale_colour_manual("MATH group", values = MATH_colours[1:2]) +
  scale_shape_manual(name = "MATH group", values = c(19, 17)) +
  theme_minimal()

load2_plot +
  labs(
    title = "Standardised Loadings",
    subtitle = "Showing the first 2 factors of the 4-factor model"
  )

ggsave("output/uoe_pre_4factor.pdf", units = "cm", width = 14, height = 10, dpi = 300,
       plot = load2_plot)

main_factors <- load2 %>% 
#  mutate(factorNone = 0.4) %>%  # add this to set the main factor to "None" where all loadings are below 0.4
  pivot_longer(names_to = "factor",
               cols = contains("fl")) %>% 
  mutate(value_abs = abs(value)) %>% 
  group_by(variable) %>% 
  top_n(1, value_abs) %>% 
  ungroup() %>% 
  transmute(main_factor = factor, variable)


load2 %>% 
  select(-uniqueness) %>% 
  # add the info about which is the main factor
  left_join(main_factors, by = "variable") %>%
  left_join(item_info %>% select(variable = question, description, MATH_group), by = "variable") %>% 
  arrange(main_factor) %>% 
  select(main_factor, everything()) %>% 
  # arrange adjectives by descending loading on main factor
  rowwise() %>% 
  mutate(max_loading = max(abs(c_across(starts_with("fl"))))) %>% 
  group_by(main_factor) %>% 
  arrange(-max_loading, .by_group = TRUE) %>% 
  select(-max_loading) %>% 
  # sort out the presentation
  rename("Main Factor" = main_factor,
         "Question" = variable) %>%
  mutate_at(
    vars(starts_with("fl")),
    ~ cell_spec(round(., digits = 3), bold = if_else(abs(.) > 0.4, T, F))
  ) %>% 
  kable(booktabs = T, escape = F, longtable = T) %>% 
  kableExtra::collapse_rows(columns = 1, valign = "top") %>%
  kableExtra::kable_styling(latex_options = c("repeat_header"))

Main Factor	Question	fl1	fl2	fl3	fl4	description	MATH_group
fl1	A3	0.539	0.035	0.058	0.031	composition of functions	B
fl1	A20	0.483	0.144	0.258	0.13	product rule with given values	B
fl1	A4	0.483	0.049	0.185	0.197	completing the square	A
fl1	A10	0.399	0.086	0.159	0.066	identify graph of rational functions	B
fl1	A7	0.373	0.013	0.248	0.16	graphical vector sum	B
fl1	A19	0.37	0.177	0.244	0.163	area between curve and x-axis (in 2 parts)	B
fl1	A1	0.331	0.025	0.084	0.079	properties of fractions	A
fl1	A9	0.247	0.151	0.072	0.202	simplify logs	A
fl1	A2	0.166	0.03	0.074	0.114	find intersection of lines	A
fl2	A17	0.028	0.727	0.126	0.056	chain rule	A
fl2	A16	0.108	0.598	0.135	0.16	trig chain rule	A
fl2	A18	0.191	0.244	0.162	0.224	definite integral	A
fl3	A13	0.171	0.127	0.504	0.083	equation of tangent	A
fl3	A14	0.406	0.122	0.46	0.162	find minimum gradient of cubic	B
fl3	A12	0.173	0.103	0.323	0.207	find point with given slope	A
fl3	A15	0.127	0.179	0.261	0.135	find and classify stationary points of cubic	A
fl4	A8	0.022	0.062	0.083	0.419	compute angle between 3d vectors	A
fl4	A6	0.195	0.074	0.171	0.415	trig wave function	A
fl4	A5	0.24	0.086	0.08	0.254	trig double angle formula	A
fl4	A11	0.21	0.113	0.045	0.212	summing arithmetic progression	A

The first factor is dominated by questions that had previously been identified as MATH Group B, i.e. those that are somehow “non-standard” – either requiring students to recognise that a particular rule/procedure is applicable before applying it, or to apply it in an unusual way. This factor also includes Group A questions on “pre-calculus” topics (such as fractions, logarithms and trigonometry) that students had perhaps not explicitly practiced most recently.

The second factor is dominated by the two chain rule questions (A16 and A17), along with A18 which is a routine definite integral, suggesting this factor is related to routine calculus computations.

The third factor seems to be based on applying calculus techniques to cubic and quadratic curves, e.g. to find tangent lines or stationary points.

The fourth factor is dominated by the only two questions that require the use of a calculator (to compute trigonometric functions), but more generally seems to be based on non-calculus skills (vectors, trig, sequences).

3 Fitting IRT model

The mirt implementation of the graded partial credit model (gpmc) requires that the partial marks are consecutive integers. We therefore need to work around this by adjusting our scores into that form (e.g. replacing scores of 0, 2.5, 5 with 1, 2, 3), while keeping track of the true scores attached to each mark level so that we can properly compute expected scores later on.

# Determine the mark levels for each item
mark_levels <- item_scores %>% 
  pivot_longer(everything(), names_to = "item", values_to = "score") %>% 
  distinct() %>% 
  arrange(parse_number(item), score) %>% 
  group_by(item) %>%
  mutate(order = row_number()) %>% 
# Note that the convention used by mirt is for items that have only 2 levels (i.e. 0 marks or full marks),
# the columns are P.0 and P.1, while other items are indexed from 1, i.e. P.1, P.2, ...
# https://github.com/philchalmers/mirt/blob/accd2383b9a4d17a4cab269717ce98434900b62c/R/probtrace.R#L57
  mutate(level = case_when(
    max(order) == 2 ~ order - 1,
    TRUE ~ order * 1.0
  )) %>% 
  mutate(levelname = paste0(item, ".P.", level))

# Use the mark_levels table to replace scores with levels
# (first pivot the data to long form, make the replacement, then pivot back to wide again)
item_scores_levelled <- item_scores %>% 
  # temporarily add row identifiers
  mutate(row = row_number()) %>% 
  pivot_longer(cols = -row, names_to = "item", values_to = "score") %>% 
  left_join(mark_levels %>% select(item, score, level), by = c("item", "score")) %>% 
  select(-score) %>% 
  pivot_wider(names_from = "item", values_from = "level") %>% 
  select(-row)

Show model fitting output

fit_gpcm <- mirt(
  data = item_scores_levelled, # just the columns with question scores
  model = 1,          # number of factors to extract
  itemtype = "gpcm",  # generalised partial credit model
  SE = TRUE           # estimate standard errors
  )

## 
Iteration: 1, Log-Lik: -50895.842, Max-Change: 6.51151
Iteration: 2, Log-Lik: -47143.856, Max-Change: 1.39679
Iteration: 3, Log-Lik: -46111.495, Max-Change: 3.70482
Iteration: 4, Log-Lik: -45840.485, Max-Change: 0.91195
Iteration: 5, Log-Lik: -45689.338, Max-Change: 1.04099
Iteration: 6, Log-Lik: -45627.116, Max-Change: 0.33955
Iteration: 7, Log-Lik: -45599.220, Max-Change: 0.16658
Iteration: 8, Log-Lik: -45588.708, Max-Change: 0.05793
Iteration: 9, Log-Lik: -45583.407, Max-Change: 0.06734
Iteration: 10, Log-Lik: -45580.515, Max-Change: 0.04218
Iteration: 11, Log-Lik: -45578.761, Max-Change: 0.02592
Iteration: 12, Log-Lik: -45577.647, Max-Change: 0.02897
Iteration: 13, Log-Lik: -45576.671, Max-Change: 0.01668
Iteration: 14, Log-Lik: -45576.152, Max-Change: 0.00766
Iteration: 15, Log-Lik: -45575.863, Max-Change: 0.00568
Iteration: 16, Log-Lik: -45575.430, Max-Change: 0.00230
Iteration: 17, Log-Lik: -45575.403, Max-Change: 0.00567
Iteration: 18, Log-Lik: -45575.379, Max-Change: 0.00174
Iteration: 19, Log-Lik: -45575.374, Max-Change: 0.00164
Iteration: 20, Log-Lik: -45575.363, Max-Change: 0.00188
Iteration: 21, Log-Lik: -45575.354, Max-Change: 0.00058
Iteration: 22, Log-Lik: -45575.353, Max-Change: 0.00049
Iteration: 23, Log-Lik: -45575.352, Max-Change: 0.00118
Iteration: 24, Log-Lik: -45575.346, Max-Change: 0.00065
Iteration: 25, Log-Lik: -45575.344, Max-Change: 0.00017
Iteration: 26, Log-Lik: -45575.344, Max-Change: 0.00016
Iteration: 27, Log-Lik: -45575.343, Max-Change: 0.00009
## 
## Calculating information matrix...

3.1 Local independence

We compute Yen’s \(Q_3\) (1984) to check for any dependence between items after controlling for \(\theta\). This gives a score for each pair of items, with scores above 0.2 regarded as problematic (see DeMars, p. 48).

residuals  %>% as.matrix() %>% 
  corrplot::corrplot(type = "upper")

This shows that most item pairs are independent, with only one pair showing cause for concern:

residuals %>%
  rownames_to_column(var = "item1") %>%
  as_tibble() %>% 
  pivot_longer(cols = starts_with("A"), names_to = "item2", values_to = "Q3_score") %>% 
  filter(abs(Q3_score) > 0.2) %>% 
  filter(parse_number(item1) < parse_number(item2)) %>%
  gt()

item1	item2	Q3_score
A16	A17	0.323394

Items A16 and A17 are on the chain rule (e.g. differentiating \(\cos(4x^2+5)\) and \((3x^2-8)^3\) respectively), so it is perhaps unsurprising that students’ performance on these items is not entirely independent.

Given that this violation of the local independence assumption is very mild, we proceed using this model.

3.2 Model parameters

We augment the data with estimated abilities for each student, using mirt’s fscores() function.

test_scores_with_ability <- test_scores %>%
  mutate(F1 = fscores(fit_gpcm, method = "EAP"))

Next, we extract the IRT parameters.

coefs_gpcm <- coef(fit_gpcm, IRTpars = TRUE)

We use the tidy_mirt_coeffs function to get all the parameter estimates into a tidy table:

source("fn_tidy_mirt_coefs.R")

tidy_gpcm <- tidy_mirt_coefs(coefs_gpcm)

tidy_gpcm %>% 
  filter(par == "a") %>% 
  select(-par) %>% 
  rename_with(.fn = ~ paste0("a_", .x), .cols = -Question) %>% 
  left_join(
    tidy_gpcm %>% 
      filter(str_detect(par, "^b")),
    by = "Question"
  ) %>% 
  gt(groupname_col = "Question") %>%
  fmt_number(columns = contains("est|_"), decimals = 3) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("a_"),
    colors = scales::col_numeric(palette = c("Greens"), domain = NULL)
  ) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = c("est", "CI_2.5", "CI_97.5"),
    colors = scales::col_numeric(palette = c("Blues"), domain = NULL)
  ) %>%
  tab_spanner(label = "Discrimination", columns = contains("a_")) %>%
  tab_spanner(label = "Difficulty", columns = c("par", "est", "CI_2.5", "CI_97.5"))

Discrimination			Difficulty
a_est	a_CI_2.5	a_CI_97.5	par	est	CI_2.5	CI_97.5
A1
0.6739273	0.5766091	0.7712455	b1	-2.37887310	-2.70677829	-2.05096790
0.6739273	0.5766091	0.7712455	b2	-2.77145860	-3.15954563	-2.38337157
A2
0.3663307	0.2934319	0.4392295	b1	2.05108376	1.24385401	2.85831351
0.3663307	0.2934319	0.4392295	b2	-8.62067669	-10.37049167	-6.87086170
A3
1.0870453	0.9675230	1.2065675	b1	-0.84539828	-0.94886622	-0.74193034
A4
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b1	11.73622013	7.30832377	16.16411649
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b2	-14.41982341	-18.82895390	-10.01069291
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b3	3.21551287	1.76923276	4.66179298
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b4	-7.39155856	-8.82579336	-5.95732375
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b5	2.20536928	1.28228743	3.12845113
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b6	-4.92286032	-5.84277186	-4.00294877
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b7	1.56215355	0.89309330	2.23121379
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b8	-3.60160285	-4.28569144	-2.91751425
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b9	6.27564656	5.27623198	7.27506114
0.2734782	0.2460363	0.3009201	b10	-9.54842246	-10.80070414	-8.29614078
A5
1.0451735	0.9039862	1.1863607	b1	-1.90850902	-2.11948357	-1.69753446
A6
0.4263958	0.3782147	0.4745769	b1	0.75043015	0.52648747	0.97437283
0.4263958	0.3782147	0.4745769	b2	9.20247071	7.79017178	10.61476964
0.4263958	0.3782147	0.4745769	b3	-7.47434964	-8.85132818	-6.09737111
A7
0.6618140	0.5902292	0.7333989	b1	1.71629156	1.34094390	2.09163921
0.6618140	0.5902292	0.7333989	b2	-3.93569909	-4.42025082	-3.45114736
A8
0.5232691	0.4326544	0.6138839	b1	-1.24674100	-1.48771035	-1.00577165
A9
1.2731825	1.0950872	1.4512779	b1	-2.08927226	-2.30486362	-1.87368089
A10
0.6375293	0.5675827	0.7074758	b1	-0.83165992	-1.00159912	-0.66172072
0.6375293	0.5675827	0.7074758	b2	-1.09423875	-1.28487792	-0.90359958
A11
0.2874306	0.2455924	0.3292689	b1	-1.83148685	-2.73156569	-0.93140801
0.2874306	0.2455924	0.3292689	b2	-5.93170797	-6.91126447	-4.95215147
0.2874306	0.2455924	0.3292689	b3	9.59073848	7.75997286	11.42150409
0.2874306	0.2455924	0.3292689	b4	-14.01994221	-16.34217642	-11.69770801
A12
0.4469893	0.3938993	0.5000792	b1	0.92339830	0.47109722	1.37569938
0.4469893	0.3938993	0.5000792	b2	0.82752184	0.28810586	1.36693783
0.4469893	0.3938993	0.5000792	b3	-6.81714207	-7.72532434	-5.90895981
A13
0.4498875	0.4002035	0.4995716	b1	-0.92305819	-1.21251257	-0.63360381
0.4498875	0.4002035	0.4995716	b2	4.44772263	3.63907005	5.25637520
0.4498875	0.4002035	0.4995716	b3	-7.94643800	-9.00376537	-6.88911062
A14
0.5058676	0.4592957	0.5524394	b1	1.59690368	1.20277845	1.99102890
0.5058676	0.4592957	0.5524394	b2	-3.78725933	-4.21495258	-3.35956608
0.5058676	0.4592957	0.5524394	b3	8.73895686	7.38014808	10.09776565
0.5058676	0.4592957	0.5524394	b4	-3.77332206	-4.98361643	-2.56302770
0.5058676	0.4592957	0.5524394	b5	-4.33839831	-4.96075350	-3.71604312
A15
0.2315387	0.2010493	0.2620280	b1	8.34058532	6.77169763	9.90947301
0.2315387	0.2010493	0.2620280	b2	-6.58343508	-7.89985746	-5.26701269
0.2315387	0.2010493	0.2620280	b3	3.11283156	2.20383750	4.02182563
0.2315387	0.2010493	0.2620280	b4	-10.63256038	-12.21589986	-9.04922090
A16
1.7636035	1.5204396	2.0067673	b1	-1.87625943	-2.03473886	-1.71778000
A17
1.6549288	1.3943388	1.9155188	b1	-2.22363608	-2.44350649	-2.00376566
A18
0.9999717	0.8822981	1.1176452	b1	-1.12920867	-1.25973364	-0.99868370
A19
1.3764839	1.2429462	1.5100216	b1	-0.02088671	-0.08918441	0.04741098
A20
1.8142982	1.6389921	1.9896043	b1	0.33216145	0.26971198	0.39461092

tidy_gpcm %>% 
  write_csv("output/uoe_pre_gpcm-results.csv")

3.3 Information curves

theta <- seq(-6, 6, by=0.05)

info_matrix <- testinfo(fit_gpcm, theta, individual = TRUE)
colnames(info_matrix) <- item_info %>% pull(question)
item_info_data <- info_matrix %>% 
  as_tibble() %>% 
  bind_cols(theta = theta) %>% 
  pivot_longer(cols = -theta, names_to = "item", values_to = "info_y") %>% 
  left_join(item_info %>% select(item = question, MATH_group), by = "item") %>% 
  mutate(item = fct_reorder(item, parse_number(item)))

3.3.1 Test information curve

item_info_data %>% 
  group_by(theta) %>% 
  summarise(info_y = sum(info_y)) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = info_y)) +
  geom_line() +
  labs(x = "Ability", y = "Information", title = "Edinburgh MDT") +
  theme_minimal()

ggsave("output/uoe_pre_info.pdf", width = 10, height = 6, units = "cm")

This shows that the information given by the test is skewed toward the lower end of the ability scale - i.e. it can give more accurate estimates of students’ ability where their ability level is slightly below the mean.

3.3.2 Item information curves

Breaking this down by question helps to highlight those questions that are most/least informative:

item_info_data %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = info_y, colour = item)) +
  geom_line() +
  scale_colour_viridis_d(option = "plasma", end = 0.8, direction = -1) +
  facet_wrap(vars(item)) +
  labs(y = "Information") +
  theme_minimal()

We can also compute the sums of different subsets of the information curves – here, we will look at the questions based on their MATH group:

item_info_data %>% 
  group_by(theta) %>% 
  summarise(
    items_all = sum(info_y),
    items_A = sum(ifelse(MATH_group == "A", info_y, 0)),
    items_B = sum(ifelse(MATH_group == "B", info_y, 0))
  ) %>% 
  pivot_longer(cols = starts_with("items_"), names_to = "items", names_prefix = "items_", values_to = "info_y") %>% 
  mutate(items = fct_relevel(items, "all", "A", "B")) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = info_y, colour = items)) +
  geom_line() +
  scale_colour_manual(values = c("all" = "#000000", MATH_colours)) +
  labs(x = "Ability", y = "Information") +
  theme_minimal()

ggsave("output/uoe_pre_info-curves_A-vs-B.pdf", units = "cm", width = 14, height = 6)

This shows that the information in the MATH Group B questions is at a higher point on the ability scale than for the MATH Group A questions.

Since the number of items in each case is different, we consider instead the mean information per item:

item_info_data %>% 
  group_by(theta) %>% 
  summarise(
    items_all = sum(info_y) / n(),
    items_A = sum(ifelse(MATH_group == "A", info_y, 0)) / sum(ifelse(MATH_group == "A", 1, 0)),
    items_B = sum(ifelse(MATH_group == "B", info_y, 0)) / sum(ifelse(MATH_group == "B", 1, 0))
  ) %>% 
  pivot_longer(cols = starts_with("items_"), names_to = "items", names_prefix = "items_", values_to = "info_y") %>% 
  mutate(items = fct_relevel(items, "all", "A", "B")) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = info_y, colour = items)) +
  geom_line() +
  scale_colour_manual(values = c("all" = "#000000", MATH_colours)) +
  labs(x = "Ability", y = "Mean information per item") +
  theme_minimal()

ggsave("output/uoe_pre_info-curves_A-vs-B-avg.pdf", units = "cm", width = 10, height = 6)

This shows that items of each MATH group are giving broadly similar levels of information on average, but at different points on the ability scale.

3.4 Total information

Using mirt’s areainfo function, we can find the total area under the information curves.

info_gpcm <- areainfo(fit_gpcm, c(-4,4))
info_gpcm %>% gt()

LowerBound	UpperBound	Info	TotalInfo	Proportion	nitems
-4	4	24.91412	27.42629	0.9084027	20

This shows that the total information in all items is 27.426295.

3.4.1 Information by item

tidy_info <- item_info %>%
  mutate(item_num = row_number()) %>% 
  mutate(TotalInfo = purrr::map_dbl(
    item_num,
    ~ areainfo(fit_gpcm,
               c(-4, 4),
               which.items = .x) %>% pull(TotalInfo)
  ))

tidy_info %>%
  select(-item_num) %>% 
  arrange(-TotalInfo) %>% 
  #group_by(outcome) %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  fmt_number(columns = contains("a_"), decimals = 2) %>%
  fmt_number(columns = contains("b_"), decimals = 2) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("info"),
    colors = scales::col_numeric(palette = c("Greens"), domain = NULL)
  ) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("outcome"),
    colors = scales::col_factor(palette = c("viridis"), domain = NULL)
  ) %>%
  cols_label(
    TotalInfo = "Information"
  )

question	description	MATH_group	Information
A4	completing the square	A	2.7267354
A14	find minimum gradient of cubic	B	2.5274266
A20	product rule with given values	B	1.8142981
A16	trig chain rule	A	1.7636024
A17	chain rule	A	1.6549245
A19	area between curve and x-axis (in 2 parts)	B	1.3764810
A1	properties of fractions	A	1.3437311
A13	equation of tangent	A	1.3420102
A12	find point with given slope	A	1.3372831
A7	graphical vector sum	B	1.3232681
A6	trig wave function	A	1.2742625
A9	simplify logs	A	1.2731285
A10	identify graph of rational functions	B	1.2726651
A11	summing arithmetic progression	A	1.1089275
A3	composition of functions	B	1.0869852
A5	trig double angle formula	A	1.0449474
A18	definite integral	A	0.9998165
A15	find and classify stationary points of cubic	A	0.9166682
A2	find intersection of lines	A	0.7226252
A8	compute angle between 3d vectors	A	0.5165082

Restricting instead to the range \(-2\leq\theta\leq2\):

tidy_info <- item_info %>%
  mutate(item_num = row_number()) %>% 
  mutate(TotalInfo = purrr::map_dbl(
    item_num,
    ~ areainfo(fit_gpcm,
               c(-2, 2),
               which.items = .x) %>% pull(Info)
  ))

tidy_info %>%
  select(-item_num) %>% 
  arrange(-TotalInfo) %>% 
  #group_by(outcome) %>% 
  gt() %>% 
  fmt_number(columns = contains("a_"), decimals = 2) %>%
  fmt_number(columns = contains("b_"), decimals = 2) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("info"),
    colors = scales::col_numeric(palette = c("Greens"), domain = NULL)
  ) %>%
  data_color(
    columns = contains("outcome"),
    colors = scales::col_factor(palette = c("viridis"), domain = NULL)
  ) %>%
  cols_label(
    TotalInfo = "Information"
  )

question	description	MATH_group	Information
A14	find minimum gradient of cubic	B	2.0688682
A20	product rule with given values	B	1.7043642
A4	completing the square	A	1.5795642
A19	area between curve and x-axis (in 2 parts)	B	1.2114717
A16	trig chain rule	A	0.9757468
A7	graphical vector sum	B	0.9572318
A13	equation of tangent	A	0.8503176
A10	identify graph of rational functions	B	0.8046603
A3	composition of functions	B	0.7987483
A12	find point with given slope	A	0.7787257
A6	trig wave function	A	0.7728878
A17	chain rule	A	0.6745425
A18	definite integral	A	0.6629645
A9	simplify logs	A	0.5935119
A5	trig double angle formula	A	0.5302626
A15	find and classify stationary points of cubic	A	0.4802470
A1	properties of fractions	A	0.4683832
A11	summing arithmetic progression	A	0.3844167
A8	compute angle between 3d vectors	A	0.2316390
A2	find intersection of lines	A	0.1933876

3.5 Response curves

Since the gpcm model is more complicated, there is a characteristic curve for each possible score on the question:

trace_data <- probtrace(fit_gpcm, theta) %>% 
  as_tibble() %>% 
  bind_cols(theta = theta) %>% 
  pivot_longer(cols = -theta, names_to = "level", values_to = "y") %>% 
  left_join(mark_levels %>% select(item, level = levelname, score), by = "level") %>% 
  mutate(score = as.factor(score))

trace_data %>% 
  mutate(item = fct_reorder(item, parse_number(item))) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = y, colour = score)) +
  geom_line() +
  scale_colour_viridis_d(option = "plasma", end = 0.8, direction = -1) +
  facet_wrap(vars(item)) +
  labs(y = "Probability of response") +
  theme_minimal()

To get a simplified picture for each question, we compute the expected score at each ability level:

expected_scores <- trace_data %>% 
  mutate(item = fct_reorder(item, parse_number(item))) %>% 
  group_by(item, theta) %>% 
  summarise(expected_score = sum(as.double(as.character(score)) * y), .groups = "drop")

expected_scores %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = expected_score, colour = item)) +
  geom_line() +
  scale_colour_viridis_d(option = "plasma", end = 0.8, direction = -1) +
  facet_wrap(vars(item)) +
  labs(y = "Expected score") +
  theme_minimal()

The resulting curves look quite similar to those from the 2PL, allowing for some similar interpretation. For instance, superimposing all the curves shows that there is a spread of difficulties (i.e. thetas where the expected score is 2.5/5) and that some questions are more discriminating than others (i.e. steeper slopes):

plt <- expected_scores %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = expected_score, colour = item, text = item)) +
  geom_line() +
  scale_colour_viridis_d(option = "plasma", end = 0.8, direction = -1) +
  labs(y = "Expected score") +
  theme_minimal()

ggplotly(plt, tooltip = "text")

ggsave(plot = plt, file = "output/uoe_pre_iccs-superimposed.pdf", width = 20, height = 14, units = "cm")

highlight_removed_items <- expected_scores %>% 
  mutate(highlight_item = item %in% c("A2", "A8", "A11")) %>% 
  mutate(line_width = ifelse(highlight_item, 1, 0.5))

highlight_removed_items %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = expected_score, colour = item, text = item, alpha = highlight_item)) +
  geom_line(aes(size = highlight_item)) +
  #geom_point(data = highlight_removed_items %>% filter(highlight_item == TRUE, theta == 0)) +
  ggrepel::geom_label_repel(
    data = highlight_removed_items %>% filter(highlight_item == TRUE, theta == 0),
    aes(label = item),
    box.padding = 0,
    show.legend = FALSE
  ) +
  scale_colour_viridis_d("Question", option = "plasma", end = 0.8, direction = -1) +
  scale_size_manual(values = c("FALSE" = 0.6, "TRUE" = 0.9), guide = "none") +
  scale_alpha_discrete(guide = "none", range = c(0.2, 1)) +
  labs(x = "Ability", y = "Expected score") +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(legend.position="bottom",#legend.title=element_blank(),
      legend.margin = margin(0, 0, 0, 0),
      legend.spacing.x = unit(1, "mm"),
      legend.spacing.y = unit(0, "mm")) +
  guides(colour = guide_legend(nrow = 2))

## Warning: Using alpha for a discrete variable is not advised.

ggsave(file = "output/uoe_pre_iccs-highlight.pdf", width = 16, height = 10, units = "cm")

3.5.1 Test response curve

total_expected_score <- expected_scores %>% 
  group_by(theta) %>% 
  summarise(expected_score = sum(expected_score))

total_expected_score %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = theta, y = expected_score)) +
  geom_line() +
  # geom_point(data = total_expected_score %>% filter(theta == 0)) +
  # ggrepel::geom_label_repel(data = total_expected_score %>% filter(theta == 0), aes(label = round(expected_score, 1)), box.padding = 0.5) +
  scale_colour_viridis_d(option = "plasma", end = 0.8, direction = -1) +
  labs(y = "Expected score") +
  theme_minimal()

4 Predictive validity

course_results <- read_csv("data-uoe/ANON_2013-2017_course-results.csv", col_types = "ccddddddddd")

course_results_long <- course_results %>% 
  pivot_longer(cols = !c(AnonID, year), names_to = "course", values_to = "mark") %>% 
  filter(!is.na(mark)) %>% 
  separate(course, into = c("course_type", "course"), sep = "_") %>% 
  mutate(year = str_replace(year, "/", "-1"))

course_results_vs_diagtest <- course_results_long %>% 
  left_join(test_scores_with_ability %>% select(AnonID, year, diagtest_score = Total, F1), by = c("AnonID", "year")) %>% 
  filter(!is.na(diagtest_score))

We have both course results and diagnostic test scores for the following number of students:

course_results_vs_diagtest %>% 
  select(AnonID, year) %>% 
  distinct() %>% 
  tally()

## # A tibble: 1 × 1
##       n
##   <int>
## 1  2509

4.1 Specialist courses

Mathematics students take linear algebra (ILA) in semester 1, then calculus (CAP) and a proofs course (PPS) in semester 2.

course_results_vs_diagtest %>% 
  filter(course_type == "spec") %>% 
  janitor::tabyl(year, course) %>% 
  gt()

year	CAP	ILA	PPS
2013-14	286	302	170
2014-15	313	347	177
2015-16	236	257	168
2016-17	280	300	179

course_results_vs_diagtest %>% 
  filter(course_type == "spec") %>% 
  mutate(course = fct_relevel(course, "ILA", "CAP", "PPS")) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = diagtest_score, y = mark)) +
  geom_point(size = 0.8, stroke = 0, alpha = 0.5) +
  geom_smooth(method = lm, formula = "y ~ x") +
  ggpubr::stat_cor(label.y = 105, p.accuracy = 0.001) +
  facet_grid(cols = vars(course)) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(strip.text.x = element_text(size = 12)) +
  labs(x = "Edinburgh MDT score", y = "Course result")

ggsave("output/uoe_pre_regression-spec.pdf", units = "cm", width = 16, height = 8)

This shows that the diagnostic test is moderately predictive of success in year 1.

Note that the correlations are lower in semester 2 courses; this is to be expected, as the information from the diagnostic test becomes less relevant as students experience more teaching during their courses.
The correlation in PPS is lower than in CAP. Again this is as we would expect, since much of PPS is concerned with writing proofs and this is not something addressed by the diagnostic test.

4.2 Non-specialist courses

On the non-specialist side, students take the following courses:

MSE - for engineering and chemistry students, discontinued after 2014-15,
EM - for engineering students
MNS - for chemistry students

The courses come in two parts: 1a in semester 1, and 1b in semester 2.

course_results_vs_diagtest %>% 
  filter(course_type == "nonspec") %>% 
  janitor::tabyl(year, course) %>% 
  gt()

year	EM1a	EM1b	MNS1a	MNS1b	MSE1a	MSE1b
2013-14	0	0	0	0	316	310
2014-15	0	0	0	0	364	351
2015-16	231	215	61	57	0	0
2016-17	222	223	63	59	0	0

course_results_vs_diagtest %>% 
  filter(course_type == "nonspec") %>% 
  separate(course, into = c("course", "semester"), sep = "\\d") %>% 
  mutate(semester = ifelse(semester == "a", "Semester 1", "Semester 2")) %>% 
  mutate(course = fct_relevel(course, "MSE", "EM", "MNS")) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = diagtest_score, y = mark)) +
  geom_point(size = 0.8, stroke = 0, alpha = 0.5) +
  geom_smooth(method = lm, formula = "y ~ x") +
  ggpubr::stat_cor(label.y = 105, p.accuracy = 0.001) +
  facet_grid(rows = vars(semester), cols = vars(course)) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(strip.text.x = element_text(size = 12)) +
  labs(x = "Edinburgh MDT score", y = "Course result")

ggsave("output/uoe_pre_regression-nonspec.pdf", units = "cm", width = 16, height = 16)

We see a similar pattern of the diagnostic test being moderately predictive of Semester 1 results, and still somewhat predictive in Semester 2.

About this report

This report supports the analysis in the following paper:

[citation needed]

Packages

In this analysis we used the following packages. You can learn more about each one by clicking on the links below.

mirt: For IRT analysis
psych: For factor analysis
tidyverse: For data wrangling and visualisation
reshape: For reshaping nested lists
vroom: For reading in many files at once
broom: For tidying model output
fs: For file system operations
gt: For formatting tables
knitr: For markdown tables
ggrepel: For labelling points without overlap
skimr: For data frame level summary
ggridges: For ridge plots

Analysis of test with partial credit (University of Edinburgh)

George Kinnear

2022-06-13